Among the numerous objections which have been raised against the Scriptural doctrine that God alone converts man (Solus Deus convertit hominem) the following deserve special notice: —
a. Since God in His Word demands repentance, or conversion, of man (Acts 16, 31; Mark 1, 15), he must be able, at least in part, to convert himself. To this we reply that from the divine demand no conclusion may be drawn with respect to man’s ability to comply with God’s will. A debito ad posse non valet consequents.
On the contrary, the divine commands and exhortations are the means by which God works that which He demands. Thus through the commands of the Law (admonitiones legales) He humiliates man and works in him true knowledge of sin, Luke 10, 28; Rom. 3, 20, while through the Gospel exhortations (admonitiones evangelicae) He works in him true faith, Matt. 11, 28. As an analog of the divine method of working through His omnipotent Word that which He wills we may cite the resurrection of Lazarus, John 11, 43. 44 (cp. also Acts 3, 6) and the work of creation, Gen. 1, 3 ff. Hence we must not reason: “Why command men to do what they are utterly unable to do? Why bid a man believe when he cannot?” but rather regard both the acmonitiones legales and the _admonitiones evangelica_e as the efficient means by which God accomplishes His beneficent purpose of saving sinners. That the synergistic argument A debito ad posse valet consequentia is untenable Scripture clearly shows, Matt. 11, 28, cp. with John 6, 44.
With regard to the conditional clauses, Rom. 10, 9, it may be said that these point out, not real conditions, but the means by which God accomplishes man’s salvation. Thus the statement “If thou shalt believe in thine heart, . . . thou shalt be saved,” means nothing else than “By faith thou shalt be saved.”
b. Unless man cooperates in his conversion, his conversion becomes an act of coercion (COACTIO), or force; in other words, in that case man is converted by irresistible grace, an assumption which Scripture condemns. To this we reply that this objection ignores the very nature of conversion, which consists in the divine act by which God through the means of grace changes the unwilling into such as are willing, John 6, 44. Conversion is not an act by which God thrusts upon the sinner what he does not desire or forces him to receive what he does not want, but it is a gracious divine drawing (John 6, 44: ἑλκύσῃ), by which He works in him “both to will and to do,” Phil. 2, 13. Luther rightly remarks that God, in converting man, does not draw him as the hangman draws a criminal to the gallows, but by “softening and changing his heart” through the means of grace. “Es ist ein freundlich Loclcen und An-sich-Ziehen, wie sonst ein holdseliger Mann die Leute an sich zieht.” (St. L., VII, 2287 ff.)
c. God works the ability to believe, but not the act of faith, or He prepares man for conversion, but does not accomplish it, since the final decision rests with man himself. To this we reply that according to Holy Scripture the very act of faith is God’s work and gift, Phil. 1, 29; Eph. 1, 19. 20; Phil. 2, 13. We concede indeed that God works in man the ability to believe, but as soon as this ability has been bestowed upon the sinner, he is no longer spiritually dead, but alive in Christ, or what is the same, then he is already converted. Spiritual death in that case has been removed, and in its place spiritual life has been implanted in the heart.
So the Formula of Concord understands the well-known statement, which synergists so often have quoted in their favor (Thor. Decl., II, 83) : “Conversion is such a change through the operation of the Holy Ghosf in the intellect, will, and heart of man that by this operation of t le Holy Ghost man can accept the offered grace” (qua homo potest oblatam gratiam apprehendere). According to the Formula of Concord the person who “can accept the offered grace” is already regenerate; for it states definitely (Thor. Decl., II, 85) : “The man who is not regenerate resists God altogether and is entirely a servant of sin, John 8, 34; Rom. 6, 16. The regenerate man, however, delights in the Law of God after the inward man.” Hence our Confession cannot be quoted as favoring the modified doctrine of the later synergists, who affirmed that man can convert himself by using rightly the new spiritual powers communicated to him by God (Latermann, a disciple of George Calixtus, † 1662), or what is the same, that he can convert himself after God has bestowed upon him the ability to believe.
d. Unless man cooperates in his conversion, not he himself, but the Holy Spirit in him does the believing; in other words, in that case not man, but the Holy Ghost is the subject of faith. However, if this argument were correct, it would apply also to the natural life of man, for God “giveth to all life and breath,” Acts 17, 25. Yet though God is the sole Author and Preserver of human life, Acts 17, 28, every sane person agrees to the fact that man himself lives, moves, works, eats, weeps, rejoices, etc.; in other words, that the life, movement, and activity of a person are his own.
e. If man can resist divine grace and so hinder his salvation. Matt. 23, 27, then he can also assist divine grace and so make his salvation possible. Expressed more briefly, the argument reads: If man can damn himself, then he can also save himself. To this argument we reply that this conclusion does not follow. For while Scripture ascribes to man the power to destroy himself, Hos. 13, 9; Acts 7, 51, it emphatically denies that he can save himself, 1 Cor. 2, 14; Rom. 8, 7; Phil. 2, 13. Hence from the statement “Ye would not” we must not conclude with respect to the regenerate “Ye would.” What is true in the realm of grace is true also in the realm of nature. Man by suicide can destroy his life, but the life so destroyed he is unable to restore. So in the realm of conversion there is no capacitas volendi corresponding to man’s caponcitas nolendi.
f. If man is unable to cooperate in his conversion, then conversion is not a “moral” process. In order to meet this argument properly, we must bear in mind that the expression “moral” is ambiguous. We admit that conversion is a “moral” act inasmuch as in conversion God does not deal with man as with an inanimate creature (a block or stone), but rather as with a personal moral being endowed with reason and will. Taken in this sense, conversion may indeed be called a moral process; for in conversion the Holy Spirit enlightens the intellect, changes the will, and sanctifies the heart. However, conversion is no “moral process” in the synergistic sense, that man in his conversion cooperates with divine grace toward his regeneration; for Scripture, on the one hand, denies to man any power to convert himself, 1 Cor. 2, 14; John 6, 44; Eph. 2, 1. 5, and, on the other, positively declares that God is the sole Cause of his conversion, Eph. 1, 19. 20; 2, 10; 2 Cor. 4, 6; John 1, 12.13. For this reason the Formula of Concord rightly affirms (Thor. Decl., II, 87) : “The conversion of our corrupt will, which is nothing else than a resuscitation of it from spiritual death, is only and solely the work of God, just as also the resuscitation in the resurrection of the body must be ascribed to God alone.”
g. Conversion is a "free” process in man. (Homo libere se convertit.) To this argument we reply that, if the term “free” is used in opposition to coercion, its application to conversion is justified, because conversion is that act of God by which He changes the unwilling into willing. (Ex nolentibus gratiam volentes gratiam facit.) But the term “free” may not be applied to conversion in the synergistic sense, that man before conversion is “neutral,” so that he can decide either for or against grace (ut possit velle aut non). With regard to man’s relation to God and His kingdom there is no neutrality; for man is either with or against Christ, Matt. 12, 30; Luke 9, 50. Luther writes: “Here there is no middle road; for we are necessarily either under the strong tyrant the devil, in his captivity, or under the Redeemer Christ in heaven. . . . Hence every man lives either with Christ against the devil or with the devil against Christ.” St. L., VII, 172.
h. Man can cooperate in his conversion since he is capable of civil righteousness (iustitia civilis, probitas naturalis). In answer to this argument we say that, while man by nature is indeed capable of civil righteousness (iustitia civilis), he is of himself incapable of spiritual righteousness (iustitia spiritualis). He may indeed refrain from gross sins outwardly, but inwardly he cannot truly love God nor rightly keep His commandments, since with all his external righteousness he does not believe the Gospel of Christ, but rather hates and resists it, 1 Cor. 2, 14. The Pharisees gloried in their civil righteousness; yet Christ judged of them: “The publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God before you,” Matt. 21, 31. In spite of their “civil righteousness” the “princes of this world . . . crucified the Lord of Glory,” 1 Cor. 2, 8. Even to the “best” Jews, Christ Crucified is a stumbling-block, and to the “best” Gentiles He is foolishness, 1 Cor. 1, 23, until they are converted, 1 Cor. 1, 24.
i. Man is able to cooperate in his conversion since he can use the means of grace externally, that is, attend church, read the Bible, etc. We readily admit that man by nature can externally use the means of grace, as also the Formula of Concord declares (Thor. Decl., II, 53): “This Word man can externally hear and read, even though he is not yet converted to God and regenerate; for in these external things, as said above, man even since the Fall has to a certain extent a free will, so that he can go to church and hear or not hear the sermon.” Yet this external use of the means of grace does not presuppose any ability on the part of men to repent of their sins and believe in Christ; for even while they read or hear the Word, “the veil is upon their hearts,” 2 Cor. 3, 15, which veil is “done away in Christ,” v. 14, that is, through faith in Christ, wrought by the Holy Spirit, v. 16—18.
j. If God alone works conversion in man, then it cannot be maintained that He really desires the salvation of all men; for. actually He does not convert all. To this we reply that Holy Scripture teaches both the sola gratia and the gratia universalis; that is, God alone converts and saves sinners, and He earnestly desires to save all sinners. Both doctrines must therefore be taught side by side without any modification or qualification of either of them. It is true, if this is done, the theologian is confronted with the perplexing problem, which human reason cannot solve, “Why, then, are not all saved?” (Cur alii, alii non? Cur alii prae aliis?) Calvinism solves the mystery by denying the universalis gratia; synergism, by denying the sola gratia, whereas the theologian who is loyal to Scripture does not attempt any solution of the mystery at all, just as little as he endeavors to solve the mysteries involved in the doctrines of the Holy Trinity, the personal union, the real presence, etc. Reason indeed argues thus: Since all men are in the same state of guilt (in eadem culpa) and only God, who earnestly desires to save all men (universalis gratia), can save sinners (sola gratia), the actual conversion of all men must needs follow. But the true theologian does not recognize reason as his principle of faith (principium cognoscendi) ; he is bound to Scripture as the only source and rule of faith, which, however, does not explain this crux theologorum.
Scripture indeed affirms that God is the sole Cause of man’s conversion and salvation, Phil. 2, 13; Eph. 1, 19. 20, and, on the other hand, that unregenerate man is the sole cause of his damnation, Matt. 23, 37; Acts 7, 51; Hos. 13, 9. But it does not explain why of two sinners who are in the same guilt (David, Saul; Peter, Judas) the one is saved and the other is not.1 For this reason we reject the argumentation of Melanchthon: “Since the promise is universal and there are no contradictory wills in God, it necessarily follows that there is in us a certain distinguishing cause (aliqua discriminis causa) why Saul is rejected and David accepted; that is, there is in these two a certain dissimilar action (aliqua actio dissimilis)” This synergistic explanation indeed satisfies human reason, for it explains why one is saved and another is lost; but it denies the sola gratia and thus repudiates the central doctrine of Scripture.
The Formula of Concord clearly points out the true position which the theologian must take when he faces the mystery of election and conversion. It says (Thor. Decl., XI, 54-58):
“Thus there is no doubt that God most exactly and certainly foresaw before the time of the world, and still knows, which of those that are called will believe or will not believe. . . . However, since God has reserved this mystery for His wisdom and has revealed nothing to us concerning it in His Word, much less commanded us to investigate it with our thoughts, but has earnestly discouraged us therefrom, Rom. 11, 33 ff., we should not reason in our thoughts, draw conclusions, nor inquire curiously into these matters, but should adhere to His revealed Word, to which He points us. . . . Likewise when we see . . . that one is hardened, blinded, given over to a reprobate mind, while another, who is indeed in the same guilt, is converted, etc., — in these and similar questions Paul (Rom. 11, 22 ff.) fixes a certain limit to us how far we should go, namely, that in the one part we should recognize God’s judgment (for He commands us to consider in those who perish the just punishment of God and the penalties of sins). For they are all well-deserved penalties of sins when God so punishes a land or nation for despising His Word that the punishment extends also to their posterity,” etc.